PRIMARY MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: 1969

Scientific Side Issues: Security and Publication

With the return of the unique, expensive, and widely ballyhooed moon
rocks, NASA and its scientific advisory bodies anticipated some
potential problems that could embarrass both the space agency and the
community of lunar scientists. One was the theft or unauthorized use of
the samples; another was an unseemly scramble to publish results. To
minimize the chances of such undesirable events, the contracts covering
the scientific investigation of lunar material stipulated that the
contracting institution would establish strict security and accounting
procedures for the samples, and that the investigator would reserve
initial presentation of all results for a symposium to be held as soon
as possible after each mission.81 Both
provisions violated established scientific practice to some extent,
particularly the agreement to withhold publication; but in view of the
unique significance of the lunar samples and the benefits to be gained
by discussion at a lunar science symposium, scientists agreed to them.

Not surprisingly, since the samples were released before any of the
samples were publicly displayed, requests for permission to display the
research samples came in as soon as they were received.82 These were considered case by case at
Headquarters and usually were approved.83 This undoubtedly contributed to the
public-relations dividends NASA was accumulating from the first lunar
landing.

To disseminate the results of the initial lunar investigations to the
widest possible audience, NASA took the unusual step of entering into a
contract with a single journal84:
Science, published weekly by the American Association for
the Advancement of Science and circulated in 120 countries.
Science undertook to devote a single issue to the
preliminary results of the Apollo 11 research and to conduct all the
normal work of reviewing and editing the manuscripts on an unusually
tight schedule; NASA would cover any excess costs entailed by this
accelerated process.85

A week after the samples were released, the lunar sample preliminary
examination team published the results of its work - the only results of
the first lunar landing to appear in the scientific literature before
the symposium scheduled for early January 1970. Inasmuch as preliminary
examination was not intended to produce answers to the important
scientific questions about the moon, the paper was mostly confined to
descriptions of the lunar material and the procedures followed in the
lunar receiving laboratory.86

Nonetheless, this early work had produced data that permitted drawing
some tentative conclusions. Two generic groups of samples could be
distinguished: fine- and medium-grained crystalline rocks of igneous
origin, which were probably originally deposited as lava flows, and
breccias (heterogeneous crystalline rocks compacted from smaller
particles without extensive alteration) of complex history. There was no
water at the Tranquility site and probably never had been any since the
samples were exposed. Neither was there any significant amount of
organic material (considerably less than one part per million), which
might have indicated something about life on the moon. The rocks and
dust were chemically similar to each other and contained the same
chemical elements as igneous rocks on earth. But in their mineral
content the igneous rocks were different from terrestrial rocks and
meteorites. Evidence was found that the lunar material had been
chemically fractionated, some volatile elements being depleted and some
refractory (high-melting) elements enriched. One of the more striking
conclusions of the preliminary examination was that the igneous rocks on
the moon had crystallized between three and four billion years ago - as
old as any found on earth, perhaps even older, given the uncertainty in
the measurements. Furthermore, the samples collected at Tranquility Base
had been within 1 meter (39 inches) of the surface for 20 to 160 million
years. Many of the rocks and fines showed signs of having been subjected
to severe shock, such as might result from the impact of meteorites. The
rounded, eroded surfaces found on many of the rocks suggested continuous
bombardment by micrometeorites. Glass-lined surface pits suggested the
same thing.87

Interest in the moon rocks tended to overshadow the results of the
surface experiments that the astronauts had left behind. The passive
seismometer had recorded the footsteps of the lunar explorers as soon as
it was activated, and ground-based scientists noted a response when
Armstrong and Aldrin tossed out excess equipment before departing. Two
fairly large seismic events in the first week of operation excited
geophysicists at first, but when they were not repeated the scientists
concluded that they could have been false signals originating in the
instrument itself. Even so, the very lack of seismic activity was
indicative that the moon's interior was not like the earth's.88 The other instrument, the laser
retroreflector, was difficult to locate from earth because it was in
strong sunlight, which made detection of the reflected light pulse
difficult. Only after lunar sunset would astronomers be able to use the
instrument in the manner for which it had been designed.89

Sketchy as these results were, they clearly showed that Apollo would
revolutionize scientific thought about the moon and its relation to the
earth. The detailed studies would show how extensive this revolution
might be. [see Chapter 14]90

81. Paine to Gilruth, Sept. 8, 1969.
Some investigators did not conform to the ban. In November, a scientist
at the U.S. Geological Survey wrote indignantly to MSC's director of
science and applications, enclosing clippings that indicated some
findings had been released prematurely and outside of normal scientific
channels. According to one, Harold Urey had stated in a talk in San
Diego that the Apollo 11 samples had been found to be 4.6 billion years
old, which supported his theory of the moon's origin. G. Brent Dalrymple
to Anthony J. Calio, Nov. 13, 1969, with encl., copy of article,
"Moon Rocks' Age Is Now Firmly Fixed," San Francisco
Chronicle, Nov. 8, 1969.